MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The meaning of mobility for residents and staff in long‐term care facilities

2002· article· en· W2155601529 on OpenAlex
E.M. Bourret, Laurie Bernick, Cheryl Cott, Pia Kontos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFacilitatorNursingFocus groupMetropolitan areaQualitative researchLong-term careFeelingPerspective (graphical)Meaning (existential)Exploratory researchMedicinePerceptionPsychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the physical and psychological effects of decreased mobility have been documented, little is known about what it means to be mobile from the institutionalized elders' perspective. Even less is known about nurses' perceptions regarding institutionalized elders' mobility and about mobility enhancing strategies. AIM: The purpose of this study was to generate knowledge about the phenomenon of mobility from both the nurses' and institutionalized elders' perspective. DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative design was used. Focus groups with residents and nursing staff were conducted in three long-term care facilities in a large metropolitan city in 1998. Ethical approval was received from the ethics committees in all three facilities prior to study implementation. Twenty long-term care facility residents and 15 nursing staff participated in the study. METHODS: A trained facilitator used an interview guide to moderate discussions in which residents' and nurses' opinions and feelings about mobility were solicited. The group responses were tape recorded, transcribed and coded. The codes reflected major concepts or abstractions of the data and emerged from the participants' verbal responses to the research questions. FINDINGS: Both groups identified mobility as being pivotal to the residents' quality of life and well-being. The residents viewed mobility as a means of freedom, choice and independence, and they made great efforts to maintain their mobility. The nurses also valued the importance of mobility and assisted the residents through preparatory care, environmental modifications and encouragement. Factors that related to the residents' willingness to be mobile, environmental barriers and the impact of waiting were compared between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Mobility involves more than the movement from one point to another. The nature of the assistive nurse-client relationship and the resident's subjective perspective must become central to understanding the meaning of mobility for residents in a long-term care facility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it